March 27-31, 2006

[PhoenixRising05]

Thanks Steve and Rick-its good to know others share in my observations and in my feelings concerning Days.

It gives me two reason to hate ratings declines for Days-because it hurts my show and it causes Days bashers to come out of hiding.

[Gray Bunny]

Can we transition this topic over to people who complain about those who complain about the complainers? Cuz' the # of posts complaining about DAYS complainers far outweigh the # of posts that actually complain about DAYS. And just as the DAYS complaints get repetitive, so do the paragraphs and paragraphs complaining about the complainers. K?

P.S. Don't place me in any category or I'll !@#$%^&*]-slap you all the way to Salem

[R!ck]

As Grey Bunny gives her best Sami Brady smirk

[shipperx]

I personally don't subscribe to the belief that any one couple has any substantial bearing on the ratings (with the exceptions of big events such as weddings or character exits and entrances). On the whole, however, except for those exceptions, ratings have too many factors to boil down to any single cause, couple, or actor.

Ratings problems come in when there are pronounced detrimental patterns of mismanagement on a show.

For one example, AMC's poor ratings this week isn't in and of itself worrisome. However, AMC's protracted slide since the end of the babyswap story is worrisome. I wouldn't say that the break-up of Zendall has any huge factor on the ratings. However, with the combo of the break-up of Zendall, the distaste that most of the audience has had for the Ryan's sperm stories, the outrage over the unaborted fetus Josh story, and the general malaise of unhappiness that has hung over Pine Valley with few romantic payoffs probably has a great deal to do with the ratings problems the show is currently enduring.

Similarly, GH's uptick upon bringing back Robert Scorpio was a hopeful sign, but as the show isn't all that substantially different overall, it isn't a shock that now that the event is over, the ratings blipped downward again during this last week of abyssmal ABC ratings overall. This is in the wake of years of unhappiness with the Pratt/Guza storytelling style such that GH, while somewhat healthier when having its golden age revisited, isn't substantially better off when focus returns elsewhere.

Another example, Days has had a years and years long slide in ratings punctuated with occasional upward blips. However, at this point the blips themselves are rather predictable. Yes, Days has a few upticks in ratings, but it tends to be rather predictable that these upticks don't indicate a sustainable ratings gain. The primary reason for that is the way in which Days obtains their upticks. It's not so much that the audience is substantially happier or more entertained during and after an event, it's that some sort of ratings stunt brings in people who are ex and/or rare watchers who just want to watch the 'stunt.'

However, stunt based plotting isn't overall helpful (in fact, in some ways it's detrimental to the overall health of a soap.) Days has a tendency to create their stunts by deconstructing something in the shows heritage. That works for a quick, short term gain. But because their ratings tend to be based in deconstruction (tearing apart something established) rather than construction (building something new or reinvigorating the established), what happens is that in the wake of the of the stunt, the show tends to be worse off creatively than it was before.

Take for example the killing of Zach. In theory nothing is wrong with the idea of killing off a child in a huge story (as evidenced by GH's success with the plot a decade ago). Days actually obtained an uptick in ratings with the stunt event of Zach's death. However, while the uptick was helpful for a week or so, the storyline didn't have much depth in the follow-thru. Basically, it was little more than yet another excuse to revisit a Billie/Bo/Hope triangle that had run its course ages and ages ago. Yes, the event of the child's death upped ratings, however, unlike GH in the 90s, the event didn't mark a continued upturn in ratings because the execution wasn't particularly well done (okay, I found it singularly uninspiring, but that's a subjective judgement).

The recent upturn in ratings is equally as predictable. They had a wedding during Spring Break. Days tends to have a small uptick during holidays (based on Days propensity to depend on Jr. High students for a large overall percentage of their ratings). Add in an "event" like weddings on top of that, and some sort of uptick was relatively predictable... as is the decline in the events wake.

Days fans have become rather used to the pattern. Days fans rarely expect much of a follow through any longer. We've all seen the Stunt followed by months-of-repetition story method until it has become the expected course, so while it's no shock that Days achieves a ratings uptick with a particular event, it's also expected for the ratings to fall right back down to where they were almost immediately afterward.

Overall, Days hasn't sustained any pattern of growth (or particular stability in ratings) in quite some time. There are aberrations with a rating week here and there, but overall, there hasn't been any substantial ratings improvement overall.

No, ratings are not dependent on any one pairing, couple, or story. It is, however, dangerous to have nearly all of the shipping fanbases in uproar simultaneously (which is what Days has been doing) in addition to essentially replaying the same plots over and over again. Anyone who watched the show in the 90s has seen the Sami/Austin/Carrie/Lucas quadrangle run for years on end until it had completely run out of any and all steam, and yet Days effort to 'help itself' is to bring back the exact same story? How many times has the Billie/Bo/Hope story played out? Been there, done that. Bought the T-shirt, sold it on ebay at a loss, had it achieve 'vintage' status, bought it again at a flea market and now wonder why it's mouldering in the closet somewhere. And lets not even get into how Reilly is stuck in "kill Jack" mode or the fact that the Jack/Jennifer/Frankie triangle also played itself out in the early 90s. The show just repeats the same stuff again and again and again (often just by using flashbacks, worse when it's flashbacks of what we say just the other day).

When the audience learns that nothing much is going to change for months and/or years on end (and that anything you MIGHT miss will be shown in flashback about 1000 times), the audience learns the pattern of tuning in for events and not feeling like they're going to miss a thing when they tune right back out again. This is the pattern that Days has established for quite some time. It's what most fans on most boards expect. So, yes, Days sustained a substantial uptick with an event such as the wedding during Spring Break, and nice as that was, the ratings fall in its wake is just about as predictable as the plots on screen. The underlying problem is the same. Not one, not two, but most shipping fanfactions are unhappy with the show. Most of the plots playing out on screen are the same or substantially similar to the plots that they've played since Reilly's last tenure in the 1990s with perhaps a few name changes (Stephano brainwashing Marlena has been replaced by Alex. Chelsea is now playing Bo/Billie/Hope interference rather than just Kate and Billie.... Sami/Austin/Carrie/Lucas isn't substantially different at all. Jack is still constantly being shuffled off screen to facilitate Reilly's efforts to pair Jennifer with another guy, yadda, yadda, yadda) and the audience has been trained to believe that the general pattern of the show is to have a few isolated "events' to be watched followed by long periods of mindnumbing repetition that they really don't need to watch.

The truth is, it would be relatively easy to play killjoy when Days has an uptick in ratings by predicting its fall in the weeks that follow... because that's the established pattern of the show. It might not prove any more enjoyable though to have people anticipating the fall during the uptick. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Is it preferable to have the cold water of someone predicting the fall during and uptick? I doubt it. But people are going to point out the protracted and established pattern at sometime, be it during the uptick on in the trough of its wake. It's human nature. So I don't think one option would really be better than the other.

[R!ck]

Excellent post and as a hardcore DAYS fan, I agree 100% with everything you said.

How many times has the Billie/Bo/Hope story played out? Been there, done that. Bought the T-shirt, sold it on ebay at a loss, had it achieve 'vintage' status, bought it again at a flea market and now wonder why it's mouldering in the closet somewhere.

Quote of the week so true

[Gray Bunny]

Wow, this whole post was an excellent summary and explanation of what's going [wr]on[g] with DAYS. The only "new" storyline that wasn't on DAYS in the 90's is the Phillip/Belle/Shawn/Mimi storyline... and we all know how action-packed, fast, innovative, and fresh that storyline is! Maybe Belle can carry Shawn and Mimi's embryo and it can be a redux of Victor/Kate/Vivian! Phillip can be Ivan, the loyal oaf who doesn't get any.

[R!ck]

[SpiritualJunkie]

It's amazing how Mallet's ITL on GL had the same rating as ATWT's first 50th annniversary episode. I understand how Friday's show was either a love/hate show, but you'd think that ATWT viewers (and even non-viewers) would be interested in checking out the anniversary show of one of the longest running shows on television. Someone also mentioned that ATWT's 50th anniversary was heavily promoted...at least by CBS, so these ratings make no sense.

[Ponz]

Why do you and several others dimiss those who disagree as "Days bashers"?

Are we "Days bashers" because are profoundly dissatisfied with the current state of the show?

Because we belive the headwriter is a talentless and destructive hack?

Because we believe that TPTB have persistently dismissed and ignored the opinions of the vast majority of viewers?

Because we believe that Days has utterly lost touch with its traditional staples (romance, adventure, family)?

Because we believe a once great soap is dying a slow and painful death?

Because we believe ratings spikes based on short-term gimmicks serve to alienate viewers in the long-term?

Because we believe the superb actors on the show deserve better than the drivel they are forced to perform?

You are free to argue against any of these points but don't imply that others care less about the show or are disloyal to it for disagreeing with you.

Exactly. Superb posts in this thread shipperx!

[xDaysAddict]

Amazing post shipperx! ITA on everything you said.

[Chanel]

shipperx, I have to say you masde some STRONG STRONG points!!!! I watch Days 3-4 times a week and everything you said is completely true. There really isn't consistency on the show and everything is repetitive. But I still watch the show. Anyways, great post. And Welcome to SON!!

I am sure all the soaps will go up next week, but if Days drops below a 2.4 then its time to worry.

[SimoneS]

SpiritualJunkie, the ratings of the ATWT's Friday 50th anniversary episode are very strange. I wasn't a fan of the TV Land concept, but I made a point of being home to watch the show anyway. I've got to think that other ATWT fans did the same out of curiousity. I don't undertand these ratings at all.

[RogerNewcomb]

Are the total viewers the # of people who watched the show at any time either for one minute or the whole show? Or are these the people that actually watched the whole show? If you tune in for the first 5 minutes and then turn it off, are you still included in total viewers?

[shipperx]

Usually the rating quoted tends to be for the overall show, however (at least in primetime) Neilson also gathers statistics about whether the ratings rise or fall over the course of an hour. I don't know whether they bother to do that with daytime (since it's a slightly different animal) or whether it's a case of the media just doesn't post those results.

[sheilaforever]

What was going on Friday? Even those shows who sported an overall good week were badly hurt...

On Friday B&B lost 1 1/2 million viewers from Y&R; ATWT lost another million from B&B whereas GL lost yet another 0.4 million viewers from ATWT. There must have been pre-emptions in some areas for local or breaking news after noon!?